5 ms·

Trial by Combat? Trial by Cake

60 points by GW150914 8y ago

gee_totes 8y ago
The Achilles heel of the Muller investigation is going to be with Trump demands a modern incantation of this ancient western tradition: trial by Big Mac. Trump will easily win his innocence.
mirimir 8y ago
Aren't attorneys rather like champions? It's not physical combat, of course, but it's arguably combat, all the same. And the wealthy do have a considerable advantage, just as they do in physical combat, through hiring strong champions.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Aren't attorneys rather like champions? They have the same relationship to trial-on-law-and-facts that champions have to trial-by-combat (and, like champions, they are optional.)
- dbcurtis 8y ago
  In fact in the UK, the barrister literally evolved from the role of champion. Solicters, in contrast, do not appear before the bar at trial. In the US, both roles were combined.
larkeith 8y ago
"If an accused man died before the time of his duel, his corpse would be carried to the appointed place. In fact, there was at least one case of a dead man winning his duel: His body was too heavy for his appointment to carry from the field of battle, so the corpse was declared the victor." The source for this is interesting - the old English it quotes is fascinating, though rather unintelligible: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25526750.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25526750.pdf
- Nadya 8y ago
  >alle the condyscyons of thys foule conflycte I'm almost positive this is "All the conditions of this foul conflict." which also fits with the passage knowing that "y" = "i" and that the silent "e" was present in far more words than it is present in today. "Translating" in that way tends to make more sense of old English.
  - wallstquant 8y ago
    But why wasn’t the “th” in that sentence a letter thorn? þ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)
    - GW150914 8y ago
      That substitution was actually a result of printing text, and limiting the number of characters used. In the 13th century Scotland this was all going to be written by hand, so y was still an “i” or a “u” and thorn would have been its own character; uppercase þ, lowercase ð. For an earlier example of y as a u, and thorns all over the place, try some of this intermediate Saxon circa 9th century http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ascp/a02_05.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ascp/a02_05.htm Feala ic on þam beorge gebiden hæbbe wraðra wyrda. Geseah ic weruda god þearle þenian. þystro hæfdon bewrigen mid wolcnum wealdendes hræw, scirne sciman, sceadu forðeode, wann under wolcnum. Weop eal gesceaft, cwiðdon cyninges fyll. Crist wæs on rood. Amusingly, G’s at the start of a word are used like Y’s are used today, Y’s are U’s, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.
      - nordsieck 8y ago
        > thorn would have been its own character; uppercase þ, lowercase ð I think you've actually got uppercase thorn and lowercase eth.
        Symbiote 8y ago
Apocryphon 8y ago
Imagine if the Purple Wedding had ended with a celebratory fight- a joust?- gone tragically awry, and Tyrion was prosecuted with pastry.
whatshisface 8y ago
I tink this practice is an understandable pressure release valve for early societies with poor rule of law. If your court rules consistently against the strongest people it will have trouble remaining in power, but if the legal order is set up to be subordinate to the "natural" (most easily achieved) order it will have an easier time prolonging its own existence. It essentially means, "you can break the law, but only if we would have a very hard time stopping you." If the government exists to serve the people, that's insane - but if the courts are just resolving disputes between people with no power then the nobles will be incentivzed to prioritize stability over any other goal. The rule back then had less to do with "might makes right," and more to do with "power goes to whoever manages to obtain it."
madengr 8y ago
Dueling with swords, until first blood, ought to be leagal. Not to decide guilt, but as a way of settling slights. Of course I fence, so I’m slightly biased.
- gregimba 8y ago
  Does first blood count if you just chuck your sword at the other person like a spear?
  - madengr 8y ago
    Sure. Though that would be a delope. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloping https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloping
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  How hard is it actually to kill/maim someone with a single strike? I feel like it wouldn't be all that uncommon.
  - NickNameNick 8y ago
    Unarmoured, with live steel? I took a few short-sword lessons a while ago. The First thing we were taught was a simple block, the second thing was how to defeat a simple block by twisting your blade into the other guy's neck. The third thing was how not to get stabbed in the neck that way. It went back and forth from there. I suspect a good cut to the neck would be the most common wound, and it would have a good chance of being a mortal one.
- lilactown 8y ago
  I think we should just wrestle until pin or submission. Of course, I'm a brown belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, so I'm slightly biased.
jeromebaek 8y ago
I think one of the most glaring differences between ancient East Asian societies and Western societies is trials and the court. To the best of my knowledge no East Asian society (or for that matter, any society outside Europe) had anything remotely resembling trial by combat. From what I've read court decisions in ancient Korea and China were decided simply by the village chief, often appointed by the king. Which has its own set of problems, but none of this trial by this that nonsense.
- mamon 8y ago
  That’s probably because, as said in the article, the inspiration and precedent for trial by combat was David vs Goliath story from the Bible. Non-Christian cultures had no basis to ever try something like that
  - mgbennet 8y ago
    Well, David vs Goliath was just a justification for allowing the practice to continue. It existed in pre Christian Germanic tribes.

60 points by GW150914 8y ago

The Achilles heel of the Muller investigation is going to be with Trump demands a modern incantation of this ancient western tradition: trial by Big Mac. Trump will easily win his innocence.

mirimir 8y ago

Aren't attorneys rather like champions? It's not physical combat, of course, but it's arguably combat, all the same. And the wealthy do have a considerable advantage, just as they do in physical combat, through hiring strong champions.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Aren't attorneys rather like champions? They have the same relationship to trial-on-law-and-facts that champions have to trial-by-combat (and, like champions, they are optional.)
dbcurtis 8y ago
In fact in the UK, the barrister literally evolved from the role of champion. Solicters, in contrast, do not appear before the bar at trial. In the US, both roles were combined.

larkeith 8y ago

"If an accused man died before the time of his duel, his corpse would be carried to the appointed place. In fact, there was at least one case of a dead man winning his duel: His body was too heavy for his appointment to carry from the field of battle, so the corpse was declared the victor." The source for this is interesting - the old English it quotes is fascinating, though rather unintelligible: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25526750.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25526750.pdf

Nadya 8y ago
>alle the condyscyons of thys foule conflycte I'm almost positive this is "All the conditions of this foul conflict." which also fits with the passage knowing that "y" = "i" and that the silent "e" was present in far more words than it is present in today. "Translating" in that way tends to make more sense of old English.
- wallstquant 8y ago
  But why wasn’t the “th” in that sentence a letter thorn? þ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)
  - GW150914 8y ago
    That substitution was actually a result of printing text, and limiting the number of characters used. In the 13th century Scotland this was all going to be written by hand, so y was still an “i” or a “u” and thorn would have been its own character; uppercase þ, lowercase ð. For an earlier example of y as a u, and thorns all over the place, try some of this intermediate Saxon circa 9th century http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ascp/a02_05.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/ascp/a02_05.htm Feala ic on þam beorge gebiden hæbbe wraðra wyrda. Geseah ic weruda god þearle þenian. þystro hæfdon bewrigen mid wolcnum wealdendes hræw, scirne sciman, sceadu forðeode, wann under wolcnum. Weop eal gesceaft, cwiðdon cyninges fyll. Crist wæs on rood. Amusingly, G’s at the start of a word are used like Y’s are used today, Y’s are U’s, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.
    - nordsieck 8y ago
      > thorn would have been its own character; uppercase þ, lowercase ð I think you've actually got uppercase thorn and lowercase eth.
      - Symbiote 8y ago

Apocryphon 8y ago

Imagine if the Purple Wedding had ended with a celebratory fight- a joust?- gone tragically awry, and Tyrion was prosecuted with pastry.

whatshisface 8y ago

I tink this practice is an understandable pressure release valve for early societies with poor rule of law. If your court rules consistently against the strongest people it will have trouble remaining in power, but if the legal order is set up to be subordinate to the "natural" (most easily achieved) order it will have an easier time prolonging its own existence. It essentially means, "you can break the law, but only if we would have a very hard time stopping you." If the government exists to serve the people, that's insane - but if the courts are just resolving disputes between people with no power then the nobles will be incentivzed to prioritize stability over any other goal. The rule back then had less to do with "might makes right," and more to do with "power goes to whoever manages to obtain it."

madengr 8y ago

Dueling with swords, until first blood, ought to be leagal. Not to decide guilt, but as a way of settling slights. Of course I fence, so I’m slightly biased.

gregimba 8y ago
Does first blood count if you just chuck your sword at the other person like a spear?
- madengr 8y ago
  Sure. Though that would be a delope. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloping https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deloping
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
How hard is it actually to kill/maim someone with a single strike? I feel like it wouldn't be all that uncommon.
- NickNameNick 8y ago
  Unarmoured, with live steel? I took a few short-sword lessons a while ago. The First thing we were taught was a simple block, the second thing was how to defeat a simple block by twisting your blade into the other guy's neck. The third thing was how not to get stabbed in the neck that way. It went back and forth from there. I suspect a good cut to the neck would be the most common wound, and it would have a good chance of being a mortal one.
lilactown 8y ago
I think we should just wrestle until pin or submission. Of course, I'm a brown belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, so I'm slightly biased.

jeromebaek 8y ago

I think one of the most glaring differences between ancient East Asian societies and Western societies is trials and the court. To the best of my knowledge no East Asian society (or for that matter, any society outside Europe) had anything remotely resembling trial by combat. From what I've read court decisions in ancient Korea and China were decided simply by the village chief, often appointed by the king. Which has its own set of problems, but none of this trial by this that nonsense.

mamon 8y ago
That’s probably because, as said in the article, the inspiration and precedent for trial by combat was David vs Goliath story from the Bible. Non-Christian cultures had no basis to ever try something like that
- mgbennet 8y ago
  Well, David vs Goliath was just a justification for allowing the practice to continue. It existed in pre Christian Germanic tribes.